Background The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic forced the Dutch national screening program to a halt and increased the burden on health care services, necessitating the introduction of specific breast cancer treatment recommendations from week 12 of 2020. We aimed to investigate the impact of COVID-19 on the diagnosis, stage and initial treatment of breast cancer. Methods Women included in the Netherlands Cancer Registry and diagnosed during four periods in weeks 2–17 of 2020 were compared with reference data from 2018/2019 (averaged). Weekly incidence was calculated by age group and tumor stage. The number of women receiving initial treatment within 3 months of diagnosis was calculated by period, initial treatment, age, and stage. Initial treatment, stratified by tumor behavior (ductal carcinoma in situ [DCIS] or invasive), was analyzed by logistic regression and adjusted for age, socioeconomic status, stage, subtype, and region. Factors influencing time to treatment were analyzed by Cox regression. Results Incidence declined across all age groups and tumor stages (except stage IV) from 2018/2019 to 2020, particularly for DCIS and stage I disease (p < 0.05). DCIS was less likely to be treated within 3 months (odds ratio [OR]wks2–8: 2.04, ORwks9–11: 2.18). Invasive tumors were less likely to be treated initially by mastectomy with immediate reconstruction (ORwks12–13: 0.52) or by breast conserving surgery (ORwks14–17: 0.75). Chemotherapy was less likely for tumors diagnosed in the beginning of the study period (ORwks9–11: 0.59, ORwks12–13: 0.66), but more likely for those diagnosed at the end (ORwks14–17: 1.31). Primary hormonal treatment was more common (ORwks2–8: 1.23, ORwks9–11: 1.92, ORwks12–13: 3.01). Only women diagnosed in weeks 2–8 of 2020 experienced treatment delays. Conclusion The incidence of breast cancer fell in early 2020, and treatment approaches adapted rapidly. Clarification is needed on how this has affected stage migration and outcomes.

Our findings indicate that cognitive impairment after systemic treatment occurs in a subset of BC patients. The predictive value of demographic and psychosocial factors in cognitive impairment should be further investigated in a larger sample of impaired patients.

Background Up to 60% of breast cancer patients treated with chemotherapy is confronted with cognitive problems, which can have a significant impact on daily activities and quality of life (QoL). We investigated whether exercise training improves cognition in chemotherapy-exposed breast cancer patients 2–4 years after diagnosis. Methods Chemotherapy-exposed breast cancer patients, with both self-reported cognitive problems and lower than expected performance on neuropsychological tests, were randomized to an exercise or control group. The 6-month exercise intervention consisted of supervised aerobic and strength training (2 h/week), and Nordic/power walking (2 h/week). Our primary outcome was memory functioning (Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised; HVLT-R). Secondary outcomes included online neuropsychological tests (Amsterdam Cognition Scan; ACS), self-reported cognition (MD Anderson Symptom Inventory for multiple myeloma; MDASI-MM), physical fitness (relative maximum oxygen uptake; VO2peak), fatigue (Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory), QoL (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire; EORTC QLQ C-30), depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-9, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; HADS), and anxiety (HADS). HVLT-R total recall was analyzed with a Fisher exact test for clinically relevant improvement (≥ 5 words). Other outcomes were analyzed using multiple regression analyses adjusted for baseline and stratification factors. Results We randomized 181 patients to the exercise (n = 91) or control group (n = 90). Two-third of the patients attended ≥ 80% of the exercise sessions, and physical fitness significantly improved compared to control patients (B VO2peak 1.4 ml/min/kg, 95%CI:0.6;2.2). No difference in favor of the intervention group was seen on the primary outcome. Significant beneficial intervention effects were found for self-reported cognitive functioning [MDASI-MM severity (B-0.7, 95% CI − 1.2; − 0.1)], fatigue, QoL, and depression. A hypothesis-driven analysis in highly fatigued patients showed positive exercise effects on tested cognitive functioning [ACS Reaction Time (B-26.8, 95% CI − 52.9; − 0.6) and ACS Wordlist Learning (B4.4, 95% CI 0.5; 8.3)]. Conclusions A 6-month exercise intervention improved self-reported cognitive functioning, physical fitness, fatigue, QoL, and depression in chemotherapy-exposed breast cancer patients with cognitive problems. Tested cognitive functioning was not affected. However, subgroup analysis indicated a positive effect of exercise on tested cognitive functioning in highly fatigued patients. Trial Registration Netherlands Trial Registry: Trial NL5924 (NTR6104). Registered 24 October 2016, https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/5924.

Background: Participation of Adolescents and Young Adults with cancer (AYAs: 18–39 years at time of diagnosis) in patient-reported outcome studies is warranted given the limited knowledge of (long-term) physical and psychosocial health outcomes. We examined the representativeness of AYAs participating in the study, to observe the impact of various invitation methods on response rates and reasons for non-participation. Methods: A population-based, cross-sectional cohort study was performed among long-term (5–20 years) AYA cancer survivors. All participants were invited using various methods to fill in a questionnaire on their health outcomes, including enclosing a paper version of the questionnaire, and sending a reminder. Those who did not respond received a postcard in which they were asked to provide a reason for non-participation. Results: In total, 4.010 AYAs (response 36%) participated. Females, AYAs with a higher socio-economic status (SES), diagnosed more than 10 years ago, diagnosed with a central nervous system tumor, sarcoma, a lymphoid malignancy, stage III, or treated with systemic chemotherapy were more likely to participate. Including a paper questionnaire increased the response rate by 5% and sending a reminder by 13%. AYAs who did not participate were either not interested (47%) or did want to be reminded of their cancer (31%). Conclusion: Study participation was significantly lower among specific subgroups of AYA cancer survivors. Higher response rates were achieved when a paper questionnaire was included, and reminders were sent. To increase representativeness of future AYA study samples, recruitment strategies could focus on integrating patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice and involving AYA patients to promote participation in research.